New member - Introduction

I have a PhD in Engineering and I value the progress of science. In addition to science, I am asking questions and trying to understand the universe and life.

People will be interested to know whether I have given my religion. Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that I do not often go to temple and churches. I might go to temple, once a year, even though I do not feel it make much difference. No, in the sense that, I feel I can sometime call myself Hindu, because Hinduism belief is so vast that anything is possible.

Motivation

Search for truth and knowledge

Watched several debates between Atheists and religious leaders

Most of the debates have been between Atheists and Abrahamic version of GOD, so it does not give a whole picture on our understanding of GOD.

I feel both of them are right and wrong to some extent

Atheist and Hindu

I consider myself Hindu and Atheist at the same time. This may seem strange but you might watch Anekantavad, who consider himself as Skepticism, give several some account of Hinduism (briefly) in his videos on “India and Atheism” http://www.youtube.com/user/Anekantavad. I am going to convince anyone to become a Hindu. I do not agree on everything about Hinduism. Also I am not making a case for Hinduism. Everyone has to find their own Truth. I just want to discuss with free thinkers about big questions that face us.

I consider myself Atheist in the sense that I do not believe there is a god that has a physical form in any way. I do not believe god listen to your prayers. I do not believe that the course of action can be changed through prayer. I am not going to try to play with words to say agnostic, skeptic or anything.

I consider myself Hindu, because I am trying to search for truth and knowledge (Karma). This is my individual path. There is no heaven and hell in Hinduism. In a basic form, everyone can try to find their own truth. If one feels that one has found their own truth, they can be happy and satisfied about it. However, others who feel they have found some sort of truth can teach the others. This helps with the advancement of science, arts and our understanding of the universe. It might also help in our understanding of morality and spirituality.

I am a fan of Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson and other atheist, who have found their own truth in science and sharing with others. I watch most of their debates.

I am also a fan of Mahatma Gandhi who showed the importance of non-violence and morality.

I am also a fan of some of the gurus, such as Krishna, Buddha and Jesus, who may have found some sort of truth that they shared to people. But I do not consider them as GOD, just a teacher or Guru.

I am not a fan of people (or students of the teachers and gurus), who blindly follow without understanding. I do not agree on blindly accepting based on faith.

I do not agree on blindly believing in one book, which can be interpreted in infinite number of ways based on our limited knowledge of communication, especially when using languages.

I do not believe that the religious books are word of a supernatural being, which can be considered as god.

I believe that religion has a place in this world, but it should evolve same as science, in order to have a better understanding of our place in the universe. I would prefer to support Douglas Murray, an atheist, in his talk at the new Cambridge Union Society debate on The Religion Has No Place In The 21st Century. He talked against the motion.

My concept of GOD may be somewhat similar to what Einstein may have referred. This also is similar somewhat to what Richard Dawkins usually suggests that we can make a case for deistic type of GOD. Actually based on my own knowledge, I really cannot define GOD in any physical sense. For me GOD, based on my simplified upbringing, is the search for knowledge. This search for knowledge is similar to Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson and many others.

I will later have other discussions. I will try to look into the assumptions of universe, science, spirituality, morality etc.

Replies to This Discussion

I think even if the debates haven't covered the Hindu conception of gods, the atheist lacks a belief in gods. You can insert any god and you will still be within the atheistic definition. Is there evidence that the Hindu gods exist? If no, which I presume is the case, why should we need a different argument against them?

The position Douglas Murray offered at the talk is one most religions would not be willing to take and I think he knows that too. In as much as I agree with him, religions can't make that compromise.

I was talking about the concept of god, rather than god as a being. In this concept the energy can be refered as god. Well someone can say they do not believe in energy, then it is ok. As I have stated, for me the concept of god is search for knowledge and truth.

As for the position discussed by Murray, if religion cannot compromise then they cannot exist. The one that evolve may survive, the one that does not evolve will die as previous ones. If none evolves then there will be no religion - I doubt it. There are too many in this world who need a string of hope.

Welcome shyam! You have a really interesting perspective. I'm sure we will learn a lot from you. I hope you enjoy yourself here on TA. People can get pretty passionate, so don't ever take anything personally! :-)

For a long time I also made the search for knowledge my "God." I still value that very much but it is no longer the focus of my greatest appreciation.

I will try to create another discussion on the concept of "GOD". The menaing of GOD is different, we cannot just assume the Abrahamic definition as the creator. If I say, for me GOD is energy. Does it make me Atheist ? I can prove energy exist. Science can understand that there may be a big bang, creation of universe, involving some form of energy transformation. Energy can help to create life and matter. Energy can be transformed. I can appreciate energy for all the 'good' and 'bad' things it can do.

I feel it has different meaning to different people, especially when we are translating everything in a general language - commonly English. We give word to new phenonenas and our understanding is still limited or very small when we consider the vasteness of space and time.